*
Feature Article | by Nana Akyea Mensah, The Odikro.
Twitter: http://twitter.com/TheOdikro*
"To make it worse, they say they don’t want war, they are fighting the
president for refusing to commit troops to a war that they don’t want, and
at the same time, they say that they support the ECOWAS position which
includes the use of war. So, it is not clear what the position of the New
Patriotic Party is. An I would like to know, in very clear terms what the
position is...
"Now, if they are saying, telling us today, that they would have accepted
the advice of the Military High Command, and President Mills has accepted
the advice of the same Military High Command, where is the problem?"
*
*-* Kwesi Pratt Jnr., Speaking on Radio Gold’s *Alhaji and Alhaji* on
Saturday, 22nd January 2011
*
*
**
Kwesi Pratt to NPP: Troops are sent for war, not to dance *“Abele”,
**Myjoyonline.com,
Monday, 24 January 2011, 10:32 GMT*
*
*
Notes:
Transcription by the "Office of The Odikro", based upon audio recording
available on-line, see: Kwesi Pratt to NPP: Troops are sent for war, not to
dance *“Abele”, **Myjoyonline.com, Monday, 24 January 2011, 10:32 GMT*
*Host: **Alhassan Suhuyini*
Guests: Kwesi Pratt Jnr., CPP, CJA, Accra Freedom Centre, Managing Editor,
The Insight Newspaper; Dr. Tony Aidoo, NDC, Head of Presidential Monitoring
Unit, of the Mills Administration; Samuel *Abu Jinapo*r, NPP, Special Aide
to NPP Presidential Candidate, Nana Akufo-Addo.
BEGIN QUOTE*:*
Kwesi Pratt Jnr.: Frankly, I don’t know what the New Patriotic Party is
about. It is extremely difficult for me to say, what the point is, in the
numerous statements that the New Patriotic Party has been making over the
last couple of weeks.
Now listen, the New Patriotic Party, and its flag-bearer, make the point
that they are not for war in La Côte d'Ivoire. That war in La Côte d'Ivoire,
will have dangerous consequences for the people of Ghana. And yet, the same
people are opposed to the president declaring that he would not commit
troops to a war that they disagree with! Eh? This is incredible!
To make it worse, they say they don’t want war, they are fighting the
president for refusing to commit troops to a war that they don’t want, and
at the same time, they say that they support the ECOWAS position which
includes the use of war. So, it is not clear what the position of the New
Patriotic Party is. An I would like to know, in very clear terms what the
position is.
Do They Support War or They Don’t?
And if they don’t support war, why would the president commit troops to
La Côte d'Ivoire? Would those troops be sent to La Côte d'Ivoire to go and
dance Tango? To go and dance *Abele,* *Abele*? Troops are sent to wage war!
And that is the only reason why the president would commit troops to La Cote
d’Ivoire. And that point needs to be made very, very clear.
Now Suhuyini, you know, this whole discussion about La Côte d'Ivoire, has
been encased in ignorant noise-making. Nobody is talking about the facts.
There is so much noise based on just complete ignorance, and we are
misleading everybody with these ignorant noises!
I think it is important to set the records straight. The impression has been
created that our President is betraying the so-called international
community, and yet the facts on the ground increasingly suggest that the
positions of Ghana and our President, are indeed too mild, compared to the
positions that other heads of state and other organisations are taking.
Right now, in front of me is a statement which was issued by the President
of Angola, when he met the Diplomatic Community in Luanda. President of
Angola, a key member of the African Union! Now listen to what he said:
"His Excellency, Jose Eduardo dos Santos, The President Of Angola, Says:
We express however, our concern when military solutions are proposed to
resolve crisis such as the one in Côte d'Ivoire. Ignoring the rules of
international and domestic law and sometimes, the very evidence presented by
the facts. The facts specifically tell us the following;
One: The president of the Electoral Commission released the results of the
second round of the presidential election, when it was out of his competence
to do so, since his time, for purposes defined by law, was expired and since
the issue had been transferred to the Constitutional Council for due
consideration and treatment.
Two: The United Nations representative in Côte d'Ivoire in a hastened move,
certified and announced those results when the relevant UN resolution states
that the certification should focus on election results validated by the
Constitutional Council, which had not yet made a pronouncement.
Three: The declaration by the United Nations representative misled the whole
international community."
And Listen very carefully,. The President of Angola says:
"The declaration by the United Nations representative misled the whole
international community, since the Constitutional Council had not validated
the provisional results released by the president of the Electoral
Commission as a result of having accepted objections and complaints of
serious irregularities and fraud which undermined these results.
Four: The Constitutional Council is in fact the only organ with the legal
competence to validate and publish the final results of the elections.
Five: Under the law, The Constitutional Council should recommend the holding
of new elections within 45 days, but it did not proceed in this manner and
instead reported results that attributed the victory to another candidate.
Considering the above facts, it is difficult for Angola to accept that there
is an elected president in La Côte d'Ivoire.
We believe however, that there is a constitutional president...,"
And this is very important, listen to the Angolan position:
"We believe however, that there is a constitutional president, the current
president of the republic, who happens to be Laurent Gbagbo, who must remain
in power until the new election as established by the electoral law of that
country. The greatest difficulty now is that the 45 days are not enough to
create a favourable climate for elections, and the current crisis
complicates the matter further.
We are therefore of the opinion that any military intervention in the
particular case of Côte d'Ivoire would have an adverse effect, with serious
consequences beyond its borders.
The Angolan Executive supports and encourages dialogue and negotiations to
overcome the crisis in this brother country, and believes that by
demonstrating political will, wisdom, and realism, it is possible to find a
solution that focuses, first and foremost, on the legitimate interests of
all the people of Côte d'Ivoire.
Through the competent institutions of the African Union, Africa must prove
its maturity, experience, and ability to solve problems on our own
continent, even the most complex and delicate, in lieu of waiting for
inadequate solutions imposed from outside."
This is the president of Angola! Eh? Jose Eduardo dos Santos!.
Compare this position to the position of President Mills, and it is clear
that President Mills is a dove by any standard! You understand?
Now What Are The Essential Points That The Angolans Are Making?
One, that Ouattara did not win the elections; that the election results were
so fraught with violence and so on, that you cannot use that election result
to declare a President of La Côte d'Ivoire. What the Angolans are telling
all of us Africans, is that, look, we should be guided by law and
constitutionality. And that you cannot have democracy outside the ambit of
the constitution. What is democracy if you ignore what is provided for in
the constitution? What is democracy if it is in violation of the law of the
country and so on? This is the point that the Angolans are making.
But you see, before anybody comes to the conclusion that this one President
in Africa, hold on!
Yesterday, the Central African Republic made a very clear statement on the
situation in La Côte d'Ivoire. Their position is that the whole world is
being misled by foreign interventionist forces in La Côte d'Ivoire. And that
it is now time for Africans to resolve their own problems. The Central
African Republic has made it clear that it would not support military
intervention in La Côte d'Ivoire, especially one that is dictated by
neo-colonial imperialist forces, forces outside Africa, and that is clear.
The Gambia has even gone further. And Gambia is a West African country. Two
days ago, the Gambian President despatched his Foreign Minister to Abidjan
to declare solidarity with Laurent Gbagbo. As we speak, the Russians have
blocked a UN vote on La Côte d'Ivoire because it fails to recognize the
realities in La Côte d'Ivoire.
But you see, it is not just politicians who are seeing the light and who are
speaking out publicly and speaking to the facts in La Côte d'Ivoire. You
know, more than fifty Trade Union leaders from Africa have just met. More
than fifty, have just met. And they come from countries such as Niger,
Cameroon, Ethiopia, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Morocco, Senegal,
Rwanda, Mauritius, Nigeria, Tunisia, Zimbabwe, Kenya, Angola, Algeria,
Botswana, Burkina Faso,
Ghana, and so on. More than fifty countries represented in this conference.
Now, what is even more significant is that the final position adopted by
African Trade Unionists was read by our own Kwesi Adu-Amankwaa, who was
Secretary-General of the Trade Unions Congress of Ghana. It is a very long
resolution, and I am not going to read all of it. And in fact, for those of
you who want to read all these things, we will publish them on Monday.
But Listen To The African Trade Union Leaders!
Listen to them very carefully. This is what they said. And I am reading only
a part of it. They say:
"Already, most of our leaders are compromised by the dubious ways in which
they got themselves into power or secured their continued stay there. The
military option is a dangerous one that can plunge the whole West African
sub-region into an unprecedented crisis and should not be encouraged.
African leaders, particularly West African ones, need to think outside the
box, to devise a resolution that ensures peace and stability, as well as
promotes democracy in the long run. Everything should be done to prevent the
situation in La Côte d'Ivoire from degenerating into a situation of
full-scale conflict and civil war."
These are African Trade Union leaders! This is their position. Now, you
know, in this discussion, and indeed in all discussions about La Côte
d'Ivoire, I think it is absolutely important that we respect the facts. Now
if you are going to respect the facts, what are the facts?
The African Union, which has joined ECOWAS and the UN in insisting on the
military option, and insisting that Ouattara won the elections in La Côte
d'Ivoire, sent an observer team to La Côte d'Ivoire to observe both the
first round and the second round of the elections. The African Union Team
was led by Koku Koffigoh, former Prime Minister of Togo.
At the end of the elections, Koku Kofigoh, made a public statement in
Abidjan to the effect that the results of the elections were not credible.
They were not credible! And that they were vitiated by extreme violence,
stuffing of ballot boxes and so on. Indeed it is interesting that two of the
AU observers were kidnapped by the New Forces, and it took the intervention
of the United Nations to secure their release.
So today, if the AU tells us that Ouatarra has won an election, or that we
should wage war against La Côte d'Ivoire, what is the basis of the AU's
position? Having regard to the fact that their own observers concluded that
the elections could not be free and fair? Having regard to the fact that
their own observers were kidnapped by the New Forces, and were not able to
perform their duties?
You understand? This is the problem with the analysis! This is the clear
problem with the analysis! AU sends an Observer Mission, the Observer
Mission says the elections are not credible, and yet the AU declares a
winner! And insists that we should go to war in order to make the "winner"
the President, when its own Observer Mission, headed by a former Prime
Minister, says that the elections were not credible! I mean Suhuyini, can
you believe this?
Now Let Us Come Back To The Facts.
I have taken the trouble to look at the election results. And the paper that
I edit, has taken the trouble to publish the election results. The question
I am posing to all these political parties in Ghana, and all of these
African leaders, and ECOWAS leaders, is simply this: which one of them would
accept election results such as the one which has been released in La Côte
d'Ivoire?
You know, some of the facts I have repeated so many times over, I don't know
why they are not sinking! You know, take the Vallée du Bandama region in
La Côte d'Ivoire, the Electoral Commission comes up with votes, you
understand, votes, for Ouattara, you add those votes, they come to one
hundred and forty nine thousand votes, and yet the declaration of results
gives Ouatarra two hundred and forty four thousand votes! Who would accept
this? You go to some other constituencies, turn-out, eh? Is two hundred and
fifty per cent of registered voters! Two hundred and fifty per cent of
registered voters! Who would accept those results?
Indeed, I asked my colleague and friend, Comrade Kwesi Adu, to do an
analysis of the election results, because he does these things. He was an
election observer in Guinea and so on, so he is so good at it. And I asked
him to do an analysis. In one constituency, Gbagbo won one hundred and
eighty per cent of all the registered voters. In the same constituency
Ouattara won one hundred and something per cent of registered voters. How do
you accept these results? How can you say that these results represent the
will of the Ivorian people? By what magic?
So, either people are deliberately lying, or they don't know the facts, or
they are being insincere in the discussion of the Ivorian crisis. You
understand? Now you put that aside.
What Does The Law Of La Côte d'Ivoire Say?
The law of La Côte d'Ivoire says it very clearly that the Electoral
Commission of La Côte d'Ivoire declares provisional results. That those
provisional results ought to be validated by the Constitutional Council.
That is what the law says. So, the Electoral Commission of La Côte d'Ivoire,
does not declare who a winner is. It only declares provisional results. It
is only the Constitutional Council of La Côte d'Ivoire, which can declare a
winner in an election.
Then you have some apologists of Ouattara, they come up and they say, look,
the legal position is that that provision of La Côte d'Ivoire Constitution
was suspended because an agreement was reached under UN auspices! My
brother, this is a joke! Is anybody telling me that the UN, ECOWAS, AU, or
any International organisation, can amend the constitution of a country,
without reference to the people of that country? Does it make sense?
And yet, we are pushing this position that by virtue of an agreement which
was reached under UN auspices, parts of the Ivorian constitution are no
longer valid. Let us assume that even is true, eh? Let us assume that that
position is true. Now, if you assume that that position is true, it would
have meant that in the first round of elections, those provisions in the
constitution of La Côte d'Ivoire Constitution, still remained suspended.
And yet in the first round of the elections, the Electoral Commission
declared Provisional Results, they were validated by the Constitutional
Council, before the UN endorsed them. Why didn't we apply the same formula
which was applied in the first round in the second round of the election?
Does it make sense? You understand what I am saying very clearly?
Now, there is also this problem. A lot of people assume that the Electoral
Commission of La Côte d'Ivoire, is the same as the Electoral Commission in
Ghana Ghana. It is not true! The Electoral Commission of La Côte d'Ivoire,
is made up of thirty two members. Those thirty two members, represent
political parties, to the extent that the government of La Côte d'Ivoire has
only five representatives on a thirty two-member Electoral Commission.
The Opposition has twenty seven members of the Electoral Commission. If you
want to compare the Electoral Commission of La Côte d'Ivoire with the
Electoral Commission of Ghana, the equivalent of the Electoral Commission of
La Côte d'Ivoire is the IPAC [Inter-Party Advisory Committee] in Ghana! You
understand, it is the IPAC in Ghana.
So when people say, that the "Independent Electoral Commission of La Côte
d'Ivoire", what do they mean? When they say, that the "Independent Electoral
Commission of La Côte d'Ivoire", what do they mean? When twenty seven
members of that thirty-two member Commission is from the Opposition? And
indeed, when the President of the Electoral Commission is from the
Opposition and his deputy is also from the Opposition?
In any case, people should stop to consider the circumstances under which
the election results were declared. The election result was not declared by
the Electoral Commission of La Côte d'Ivoire. It was declared by one member
of the Electoral Commission of La Côte d'Ivoire, in *Hôtel du Golf*, which
is the Headquarters of the Opposition. He was accompanied to do that
declaration by the Ambassador of France and the Ambassador of the United
States of America.
Indeed, the declaration was not done before the Ivorian media. The
declaration was done, exclusively before the French media. No Ivorian
journalist was present when the declaration was made. And it was made in the
Headquarters of the Opposition.
Now, all our friends from the NPP, NDC and so on, which one of them would
have accepted election results, declared solely by Afari-Gyan? Even
Afari-Gyan has the right, the Electoral Commission of Ghana has the right to
declare final results! Now let us just imagine a situation in which
Afari-Gyan, alone, without other members of his Commission, accompanied by
the French Ambassador, the US Ambassador, goes to the NDC Headquarters to
announce results, what would happen?
Now the President of the Electoral Commission of La Côte d'Ivoire
was interviewed on Radio France International, and he was asked this
question: "How come that you went and declared the results in the
Headquarters of the Opposition?" His first answer was that, look, the
conditions in the Electoral Commission offices were not conducive to him
announcing the election results there.
The questioner then said, "But did you know you were were announcing the
results in the headquarters of the Opposition?" He says, "No, I don't know"!
Then he said, "But everybody in La Côte d'Ivoire knows that that is the
headquarters of the Opposition?" Then he says "I am not supposed to know
what everybody knows"! Suhuyini, can you believe this? He says he is not
supposed to know what everybody else knows in La Côte d'Ivoire! You
understand? You put that aside.
Even if you accept that the Electoral Commission of La Côte d'Ivoire is an
independent Commission, and you accept that the final constitutional
authority for declaring results is the Constitutional Council, what you do
have in La Côte d'Ivoire is a situation where the electoral Commission has
declared one result, and the Constitutional Council has declared another
result. What you do have is a political crisis! It is an issue of the
legitimacy of two state institutions.
Do You Resolve That By Going To War?
Do you resolve this situation by declaring that Ouattara is the Head of
State? Does it make sense? My goodness! I don't know what is happening to
all of us! African leaders! West African leaders! UN, and so on! What is
happening to us?
So, we have a political crisis resulting from the contestations over
electoral results. Is La Côte d'Ivoire the only country in the world to have
this situation? We just had elections in Belarus. You remember? The election
was heavily disputed. The Opposition was on the streets. There was mayhem.
The Head of State's reaction was to was to arrest two hundred members of the
Opposition, including his opponents, and lock them up. They are still in
jail.
That is in the heart of Europe! Europe is quiet! Nobody is talking about
military intervention! But when it comes to West Africa, they say our
leaders should gather troops and go and kill themselves! We should send our
soldiers to go and die! Why are they not sending their soldiers to go and
die in Belarus?
Look at what has happened with the Egyptian elections! Who is talking about
military intervention there? Who is talking about sanctions against Hussein
Mubarak? They are not doing so because of vested interests in Egypt! Because
of their support for the Zionist state of Israel, and the key role that
Egypt is playing in that area!
So they are acting clearly from a self-interest point of view! And we say,
that our self-interest does not matter! So when the President says "Dzi wo
fie asem", then there is a problem! But all of them, every one of them,
France, the United States, Britain, all of them they are "dzing their fie
asem"! All of them!
None of them is doing what they are doing because they love West Africans
more than themselves! They are doing it because of their interests in the
strategic resources of La Côte d'Ivoire! They are doing it because they
don't want the example of Gbagbo to spread through the African continent.
That is what they are doing!
And that is why it is important for us to wake up to that reality and to
begin to raise the fundamental questions of law and constitutionality. To
begin to raise the moral question and so on. Now for those of you who have
been shouting about war and so on,
I Have Some Interesting News For You!
You know, Suhuyini, I'd like to start with some definitions first. And then
you will see how ridiculous the proposition to go to war is. Listen to me
very carefully. I just checked, I am not a military man, so yesterday, I
spent some time to go on the internet. And these are the definitions I got
from the internet:
A platoon, a platoon, and fortunately Dr. Tony Aidoo is in the studio,
having been Deputy Minister of Defence before, he may understand these
things better than me.
Dr. Tony Aidoo: It is a small unit.
Kwesi Pratt, Jnr.: A platoon is twenty six to fifty five men. You
understand? I will relate it to what I am going to say very soon. A platoon
is twenty six to fifty five men. A company is eighty to two hundred and
twenty five men. A battalion is three hundred to thousand three hundred men.
And a regiment or brigade, is between three thousand and five thousand men
and so on.
Now we are saying that the Ghana government is not committed to war. Other
nations are committed to war. What is their concrete commitments? Look,
ECOWAS chiefs of staff met in Abuja on the 28th of December last year, to
consider the military option. So they said, everybody, bring what you have
and let's go to war. Look at what they brought, Suhuyini, it is very
interesting!
Liberia..., Liberia, Liberia committed one infantry platoon. To go to war in
La Côte d'Ivoire, Liberia contributed twenty six men!
Dr. Tony Aidoo: Hm hm hm! [chuckling]
Kwesi Pratt Jnr.: Sierra Leone committed one infantry company. That is all
they committed. One infantry company! Senegal, Senegal which is leading the
charge, Senegal and Burkina Faso which are leading the charge listen to what
they contributed. Senegal is contributing one commando company, one
motorised infantry company, and one battalion headquarters, take note,
headquarters, not a battalion, one battalion headquarters with level two
hospital. Benin decided to contribute only one mechanised company!
One mechanised company!
It is getting more and more interesting. Now you can see the point I am
making. Togo, Togo decided to commit one motorised company, and a possible
commando company. A "possible", it is not definite, commando company. Mali
decided to contribute one transport company, one engineer company, and one
motorised company.
Burkina Faso, Blaise Campoore's Burkina Faso. Blaise Campoore who is touring
the world to make the case for military intervention. He has been to
Britain, he's been to France, he is all over the place! Look at his
contribution and you would laugh! Blaise Campoore's contribution, Burkina
Faso's contribution is one mechanised infantry company, one commando
company, and one engineer company. These are the contributions they are
making.
This is a reflection of the commitment of West African leaders to war
in La Côte
d'Ivoire!
Abu Jinapor: What about Nigeria? A lot of troops!
Kwesi Pratt, Jnr.: Yes, I haven't come to that.
Abu Jinapor: A lot of troops!
Kwesi Pratt, Jnr.: Hold on, hold on! Nigeria's contribution is here.
Abu Jinapor: A lot of troops!
Kwesi Pratt, Jnr.: Nigeria's contribution is this. One motorised or
mechanised battalion. One! One F-17 Fighter Squadron,
Dr. Tony Aidoo: A squadron is five people.
Kwesi Pratt, Jnr.; Yeah. One M-135 squadron, one single company
and battalion headquarters. Headquarters-ooh? Sea assets, and additional one
or two infantry companies, as may be required. And indeed, Nigeria is making
the highest contribution.
Abu Jinapor: If you put all of them together, it is a lot of troops!
Kwesi Pratt, Jnr.: You don't know what you are talking about! You don't know
what you are talking about!
Dr. Tony Aidoo: They don't even reach two thousand!
Abu Jinapor: If you put all of them together, it is a lot of troops! Combined
with the New Forces.
Dr. Tony Aidoo: In total, they don't reach two thousand.
Kwesi Pratt, Jnr.: Abu, you don't know what you are talking about! Now
listen, this force...
Abu Jinapor: Combined with the New Forces...
Host: Let's finish that.
Kwesi Pratt, Jnr.: Master, this force is going to La Côte d'Ivoire to wage
war against a regular professional army of eleven thousand men! This is the
force that is going to La Côte d'Ivoire to wage war against a regular
professional army of eleven thousand men!
We are not talking about irregular forces and so on. They are in La Côte
d'Ivoire, eleven thousand men! And you are sending less than two thousand
men to go, defeat them, capture their President, and install your President!
What recklessness can this be? This is irresponsibility at its highest
level! And indeed, if I were a soldier in any of these countries, I would
rebel!
Do you know why? Because this is their death warrant being signed!
Dr. Tony Aidoo: Suicide mission.
Kwesi Pratt, Jnr..: This is a suicide mission! Suicide mission! My brother,
listen to me very carefully. If you have been to Abidjan before, Abidjan is
a densely populated city, with high rise buildings and so on To be able to
take Abidjan, you need have total air domination. You need to have troops
which would take complete control of the ground and so on. In fact, the
estimates to be able to do that, the interventionist force needs not less
than twenty thousand men, to be able to do this effectively and to do it
quickly.
And yet, our leaders in Africa think that with less than two thousand men,
and outdated equipment and so on, they will be able to do it! God bless
them! They are only sentencing their soldiers to death, painful death on the
streets of La Côte d'Ivoire.
I am happy that our Commander-In-Chief, and President, has taken the wise
decision not push Ghanaian soldiers into this reckless adventure! The lives
of Ghanaian soldiers are important to us! The fact that they are soldiers
doesn't mean that when there is any foolish thing, you go and push them
inside there to go and die! So I am very happy with the decision which has
been taken by the President.
But Most importantly, Suhuyini, listen, I heard our Defence Minister say
that the decision of the Government of Ghana, was based on advice by the
Military High Command. The Military High Command decided that they could not
participate in this war. Now the Opposition leaders who are saying that the
President should have done otherwise, what are they saying?
They are telling you that if indeed they were in power, they would ignore
the advice of the Military High Command.
Abu Jinapor: No, no, we haven't said so!
Dr. Tony Aidoo: That is the implication!
Abu Jinapor: No! No! We have never said so!
Kwesi Pratt, Jnr.: So what is the problem then?
Abu Jinapor: Nana Akufo-Addo said it clearly. He said that he was going to
heed to the advice of the Military High Command!
Kwesi Pratt, Jnr.: So what is the problem?
Abu Jinapor: And our argument is not about committing troops. That has never
been the case. We have no quarrel about that!
Host: Abu, Abu, you don't like being interrupted. You Protested seriously
and dramatized your protest! I hope you understand.
Abu Jinapor: Nana Akufo-Addo was very clear on this!
Dr. Tony Aidoo: Let Kwesi Pratt finish!
Host: Please, please! Allow Kwesi to finish.
Kwesi Pratt, Jnr: Master, I am happy about the intervention of Abu. I am not
disturbed at all about his intervention. You know the reason why I am not
disturbed at all by the intervention? Because it makes it possible now, for
our listeners to know what the issue is about!
They are saying that they would have accepted the advice of the Military
High Command.
Abu Jinapor: Sure!
Kwesi Pratt, Jnr.: Now, if they are saying, telling us today, that they
would have accepted the advice of the Military High Command, and President
Mills has accepted the advice of the same Military High Command, where is
the problem?
Abu Jinapor: I will tell you when you are finished.
Kwesi Pratt, Jnr.: You can say it any time! But you understand, where is the
problem? You are saying that you would have accepted the same advice that
President Mills has accepted, and yet you are complaining about him
accepting advice that you would have accepted! I mean, where is the logic?
You know, where is the logic?
As for the claim, as for the claim that because Ghana signed a certain
resolution and so on, we are bound to do everything that the resolution
imposes on us, the answer lies in the statement that Nana Akufo-Addo himself
has made! Nana Akufo-Addo says that in the case of Liberia and Seirra Leone,
all the Heads of State agreed to military intervention, and yet in the final
analysis, only two countries committed troops!
Dr. Tony Aidoo: Huh! huh! huh!
Kwesi Pratt, Jnr.: What does that mean? That means it is possible to sign on
to a declaration of war and not contribute troops! And that comes from Nana
Akufo-Addo himself!
END QUOTE.
Forward Ever! Backwards Never!!!
Cheers!
Nana Akyea Mensah, The Odikro
*Give me a follow and let's exchange views on what I call "a grammar of
Pan-Africanism and its manners of articulation in an ever-changing world"!
E-Mail: nanaakyeamensah@gmail.com
Twitter: http://twitter.com/TheOdikro
Copyright © 1994 - 2025 GhanaWeb. All rights reserved.
